Schumer Threatens USSC Justices Gorsuch & Kavanaugh: 'You Will Pay Price - Won't Know What Hit You!

[jc456]

yep, what's the point? let it happen. it's called a fight. legislation in congress gets changed all the time. why is this any different? New evidence is collected and presented. just like any guilty person in jail. I don't get why people oppose such things. too funny.

what new evidence can there possibly be for the abortion issue?

The issue isn't abortion, it's a 10th amendment case dealing with a States ability to regulate doctors who are licensed to practice by the State.

.

You well know that the state law was being used to limit a doctors access to give abortions. There no mystery about what’s going on here.

No it's about patient safety, and a doctor having the ability to admit a patient to a hospital and continue care, if complications arise from the procedure. The feds have no authority in licensing requirements for doctors within a State, that's the States job. I didn't think you were a big government guy and you believed in federalism. This is what federalism looks like.

.

.

I’m not a big Gov guy but when it comes to human rights I fall on the women’s side of this issue and since the issue has been settled in the Supreme Court I don’t think a state should have the right to infringe it through loophole laws like this

you have a right to an opinion as does everyone on the other side of that. And you take exception. that makes you a hypocrite.

 

[jc456]

If the DOJ assesses Schumer’s statement as a legit threat then Barr could arrest him. Why hasn’t that happened you may ask?? Well because it wasn’t that kind of threat and you’re doing bullshit political hyperbole. Now go take a nap, you’re ill equipped for this discussion.

Barr knows Schumer is an angry, bitter, TDS-suffering pr!ck who, like Pelosi, is spewing the most vile and ridiculous shite they can think of to rile up their Jonathon Gruber-esque sheep.....and he and Durham are too busy investigating and collecting the criminal evidence against Trump's criminal Agency Directors / the co-conspirators and now the Bidens....


If the DOJ suddenly began holding the Democrats accountable for all of their crimes the DOJ would have to create a new division and hire dozens of more lawyers / prosecutors just for that purpose.

Haha, ok buddy... I guess we will keep playing the “wait and see” game

that's what he just wrote. you didn't comprehend it correctly.

 

[jc456]

The issue isn't abortion, it's a 10th amendment case dealing with a States ability to regulate doctors who are licensed to practice by the State.

.

You well know that the state law was being used to limit a doctors access to give abortions. There no mystery about what’s going on here.

No it's about patient safety, and a doctor having the ability to admit a patient to a hospital and continue care, if complications arise from the procedure. The feds have no authority in licensing requirements for doctors within a State, that's the States job. I didn't think you were a big government guy and you believed in federalism. This is what federalism looks like.

.

.

I’m not a big Gov guy but when it comes to human rights I fall on the women’s side of this issue and since the issue has been settled in the Supreme Court I don’t think a state should have the right to infringe it through loophole laws like this

The court is not a legislative body, they can't just pull rights out of a unicorns ass. Also States have every right to regulate medical professionals they license.

.

Agreed. I’m not claiming they are doing anything with unicorn buttholes. The court interprets laws. And through their interpretations and rulings they set precedent which in this case applies to a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion under legal constraints.

accept for the states laws. those are actually higher in the state.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Legislators bullying the Judiciary into ruling the way they want politically is absolutely unacceptable.

Schumer’s threat was a call to action for the violent left like when the Bernie supporter attacked the Republican softball game and shot Scalise.

So reckless. Schumer needs to resign!

 

[jc456]

You well know that the state law was being used to limit a doctors access to give abortions. There no mystery about what’s going on here.

No it's about patient safety, and a doctor having the ability to admit a patient to a hospital and continue care, if complications arise from the procedure. The feds have no authority in licensing requirements for doctors within a State, that's the States job. I didn't think you were a big government guy and you believed in federalism. This is what federalism looks like.

.

.

I’m not a big Gov guy but when it comes to human rights I fall on the women’s side of this issue and since the issue has been settled in the Supreme Court I don’t think a state should have the right to infringe it through loophole laws like this

The court is not a legislative body, they can't just pull rights out of a unicorns ass. Also States have every right to regulate medical professionals they license.

.

Agreed. I’m not claiming they are doing anything with unicorn buttholes. The court interprets laws. And through their interpretations and rulings they set precedent which in this case applies to a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion under legal constraints.

i'm against abortion, if i have a say in the matter. however, my views are not binding to the world. we all tend to forget that and continue to work to create a world for ourselves, not all of us. our differences become at first talking points and then if it lingers, the divide we see today.

simply put, there is no answer that will make everyone happy. sounds like most things in life to be honest. but to me regardless of my views, this was decided and as you say, legal boundaries set all must follow. now people bring up post birth abortions and far as i know that's murder. they'd need to change that definition to accomplish that. these days the left goes into overdrive to move words around so their actions don't sound as bad as they are.

but that's a different topic completely. for abortion, if people are just waiting to make a comeback and try again with better odds, what does that honestly sound like? a refusal to accept an outcome?

kinda like losing an election and they lose their shit vs accept they have now entered a time in life where HORROR AMONG HORRORS - they don't like our president.

sooner or later you gotta stop abusing that unicorns ass and accept some things. so if i'm directly involved then i will advise against it. but decisions like this are about as personal as it can get and projecting my views, beliefs and conditions on them during this time is done for me. not them, and not the baby they profess to care about.

but given our attack mentality today and people wanting to rewrite our laws, systems and constitution to suit their individuality, it doesn't surprise me one bit. however through all this, no new points have been made. nothing new has been brought to the table. just people wanting something different and legal precedence doesn't matter. the same legal precedence they want others to follow when it suits their individuality.

strange how that works.

in any event - one of the most tear jerking songs i've ever known is about abortion and regret. i'll leave it at that.

hey lucy i remember your name
i left a dozen roses on your grave today

well actually every law on the books has opposition. your argument is useless to the exercise. Law abiding citizens collectively form a government with rules and laws. Opposition to those rules and laws are entitled to their position, but they can't override the laws on the books without passing legislation. The supreme court does not write legislation, so their ruling isn't a law. The state has the law. If the state law supercedes the court's ruling as a law, then the SCOTUS has no say. The people decide through their legislature.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Last I heard it was against the law to try to influence the decisions of a judge with physical threats or political extortion. It's clear that the threats weren't just some random generic political rhetoric because Schumer named the Supreme Court Justices. Even in the most liberal assessment of Schumer's conduct would indicate that he tried to extort a favorable decision from the highest court by using physical or political threats.

/----/ In NY, we call him Up-Chuck Schumer and nothing much will happen to him. He has a (D) after his name.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Last I heard it was against the law to try to influence the decisions of a judge with physical threats or political extortion. It's clear that the threats weren't just some random generic political rhetoric because Schumer named the Supreme Court Justices. Even in the most liberal assessment of Schumer's conduct would indicate that he tried to extort a favorable decision from the highest court by using physical or political threats.

Not at all surprised when "funnied" your post.

If Trump had said anything remotely similar....

 

[EvilCat Breath]

yep, what's the point? let it happen. it's called a fight. legislation in congress gets changed all the time. why is this any different? New evidence is collected and presented. just like any guilty person in jail. I don't get why people oppose such things. too funny.

what new evidence can there possibly be for the abortion issue?

The issue isn't abortion, it's a 10th amendment case dealing with a States ability to regulate doctors who are licensed to practice by the State.

.

Case with same scenario in Texas a couple of years ago. SC said they couldn't force abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

And that makes sense to you? No doctor should be able to perform out patient procedures and just wash their hands of the consequences. If there are complications they should be responsible for the follow up care.

.

When has it ever happened that a doctor who performs out-patient procedures not been responsible for follow-up care? It's the doctor in the ER who makes the call for a patient who arrives in the ER. Believe me. My late father was in the ER on a regular basis when he was elderly and I spent hours in the ER with him waiting for a bed to open up "upstairs." I drove my father to the ER once when he could not get out of the car to go in for a doctor's appointment and I just arrived at the ER screaming that he was out in my car having a heart attack and the staff rushed out and got him. He ended up in the ICU. I got bills from doctors who I never heard of.

This whole "admitting privilege" thing is a total hoax. A fraud. No hospital turns away a patient who needs care. If something bad had happened in the course of my out-patient colonoscopy, I would have been admitted to the hospital by the ER doctor if I needed it.

Requiring a doctor to have admitting privileges has nothing to do with follow up care. It has to do with doctor competency. Hospitals revoke admitting privileges when they suspect that a doctor is incompetent. It is usually the first indication that a doctor is about to lose his license.

 

[iceberg]

No it's about patient safety, and a doctor having the ability to admit a patient to a hospital and continue care, if complications arise from the procedure. The feds have no authority in licensing requirements for doctors within a State, that's the States job. I didn't think you were a big government guy and you believed in federalism. This is what federalism looks like.

.

.

I’m not a big Gov guy but when it comes to human rights I fall on the women’s side of this issue and since the issue has been settled in the Supreme Court I don’t think a state should have the right to infringe it through loophole laws like this

The court is not a legislative body, they can't just pull rights out of a unicorns ass. Also States have every right to regulate medical professionals they license.

.

Agreed. I’m not claiming they are doing anything with unicorn buttholes. The court interprets laws. And through their interpretations and rulings they set precedent which in this case applies to a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion under legal constraints.

i'm against abortion, if i have a say in the matter. however, my views are not binding to the world. we all tend to forget that and continue to work to create a world for ourselves, not all of us. our differences become at first talking points and then if it lingers, the divide we see today.

simply put, there is no answer that will make everyone happy. sounds like most things in life to be honest. but to me regardless of my views, this was decided and as you say, legal boundaries set all must follow. now people bring up post birth abortions and far as i know that's murder. they'd need to change that definition to accomplish that. these days the left goes into overdrive to move words around so their actions don't sound as bad as they are.

but that's a different topic completely. for abortion, if people are just waiting to make a comeback and try again with better odds, what does that honestly sound like? a refusal to accept an outcome?

kinda like losing an election and they lose their shit vs accept they have now entered a time in life where HORROR AMONG HORRORS - they don't like our president.

sooner or later you gotta stop abusing that unicorns ass and accept some things. so if i'm directly involved then i will advise against it. but decisions like this are about as personal as it can get and projecting my views, beliefs and conditions on them during this time is done for me. not them, and not the baby they profess to care about.

but given our attack mentality today and people wanting to rewrite our laws, systems and constitution to suit their individuality, it doesn't surprise me one bit. however through all this, no new points have been made. nothing new has been brought to the table. just people wanting something different and legal precedence doesn't matter. the same legal precedence they want others to follow when it suits their individuality.

strange how that works.

in any event - one of the most tear jerking songs i've ever known is about abortion and regret. i'll leave it at that.

hey lucy i remember your name
i left a dozen roses on your grave today

well actually every law on the books has opposition. your argument is useless to the exercise. Law abiding citizens collectively form a government with rules and laws. Opposition to those rules and laws are entitled to their position, but they can't override the laws on the books without passing legislation. The supreme court does not write legislation, so their ruling isn't a law. The state has the law. If the state law supercedes the court's ruling as a law, then the SCOTUS has no say. The people decide through their legislature.

yet we don't fight about so many of the other laws and force them to be reinterpreted, rethought, or the like now do we?

look - not going to argue with you on this. i am AGAINST abortion but it's not MY CALL to tell others to live according to my comforts and beliefs.

we have laws. they've been interpreted. you don't like it. go try again til you get what you like. one day that may happen. then the other side gets mad. they go to change it and eventually get what they want. you get mad, go work to change it back...

it's a never ending cycle of stupid to me i see no value in. you're not going to dictate your morals on others anymore than obama could get people to accept transgenders by force. it just doesn't happen.

yet here we are. again. trying to do just that.

 

[ColonelAngus]

This sort of call to violence by the baby murdering zealots is very dangerous.

What happens when some psycho now attacks Gorsuch or Kavanaugh?

It wasn’t a dog whistle, It was a BULLHORN. Schumer has to resign.

 

[LeftofLeft]

He is a whiny ***** who lost his shit when reality hit him in the face that elections have consequences. Regardless of the legality issue, I doubt Roberts and Kavanaugh were scared of Schumer’s threats. What’s Schumer going to do?? Impeach them?

 

[j-mac]

This sort of call to violence by the baby murdering zealots is very dangerous.

What happens when some psycho now attacks Gorsuch or Kavanaugh?

It wasn’t a dog whistle, It was a BULLHORN. Schumer has to resign.

Chris Hahn is a liberal bomb thrower...An idiot that if he had no employment path in politics he would be just another angry, broke ass liberal out there....

His arguments never have to do with fact as much as they do have to do with name calling, talking points, and racial division....He's a horrible person.

 

[DrLove]

Last I heard it was against the law to try to influence the decisions of a judge with physical threats or political extortion. It's clear that the threats weren't just some random generic political rhetoric because Schumer named the Supreme Court Justices. Even in the most liberal assessment of Schumer's conduct would indicate that he tried to extort a favorable decision from the highest court by using physical or political threats.

I would take you Trumpublicans seriously - Were it not for the fact that you are so damned funny!

In His Own Words: The President's Attacks on the Courts

 

[DrLove]

Isn’t this abuse of power and obstruction of justice?

Trying to intimidate Supreme Court judges? Holy shit. Any of you try doing it and see what happens to you.

Someone go to this Facebook page and post the following:

“I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions”

US SUPREME COURT

Then see what happens to you. I wouldn't suggest that anyone actually did that, but you can guess the outcome.

Those are Kavanaugh's words. Nice to see them shoved back up his whiney ass

 

[easyt65]

None of this, either way, justifies Schumer calling out Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by name and threatening them...."You will pay the price'...and 'you will never see it coming'.

Schumer LIED when trying to pull his big lard ass out of the fire after being called on it. Again, he was not talking to Trump and/or fellow Republican Senators - he called these 2 Justices by name and shook his fist at the building in which they work. Even if this was a gross error in choice of words, his actions - those words - will deserve official rebuke in the form of a Censure by fellow SENATE members (not just Republicans).

 

[martybegan]

It didn't have to be a physical threat, he implied consequences to them personally if they decided the "wrong" way. Be it impeachment, civil suit, protesting, or censure, Schumer threatened some action against them based on how he thinks they will decide on the LA abortion case.

Marty, you're being pissy today. You know Schumer wouldn't physically threaten anyone. Even McConnell is above that (-:

But an impeachment or stacking the Court are possibilities. And prior to Gorsuch, the last time a non-Catholic Justice was nominated it was David Souter. And before that it was O'Connor. That's not random selection process. LOL

He threatened them. Trump didn't threaten the other two, he called them out.

Do you really think K or G should be impeached if they rule in favor of louisiana?

They should not be impeached, what will happen is a Million Women March, with a large number of men joining them to picket the Court in cities all across America. R v. W will remain the law, and if the GOP succeeds in removing it they will not only lose elections, the party itself will go the way of the Whigs, for they will lose their favorite wedge issue.

However, the bill itself is nothing more than harming poor women, who can't afford to travel outside of the state of Louisiana, which makes this effort despicable.

You mean a million progressive women march. The progressive desire to claim whole groups as "one of us" is annoying as hell.

How is asking a doctor to have admitting privileges at a hospital if he performs abortions harming poor women? There are no hospitals in Louisiana?

Dumb question ^^^; of course there are hospitals in Louisiana. That's not the point, the point is it limits access to poor women and has nothing to do with women's health, it is only a bill to make legal abortions more difficult for them.

Kind of like how gun control laws are just to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to get firearms?

In this case there is a valid medical reason to ask doctors to have admitting privileges, and other outpatient surgical clinics probably have similar requirements.

 

[martybegan]

Marty, you're being pissy today. You know Schumer wouldn't physically threaten anyone. Even McConnell is above that (-:

But an impeachment or stacking the Court are possibilities. And prior to Gorsuch, the last time a non-Catholic Justice was nominated it was David Souter. And before that it was O'Connor. That's not random selection process. LOL

He threatened them. Trump didn't threaten the other two, he called them out.

Do you really think K or G should be impeached if they rule in favor of louisiana?

They should not be impeached, what will happen is a Million Women March, with a large number of men joining them to picket the Court in cities all across America. R v. W will remain the law, and if the GOP succeeds in removing it they will not only lose elections, the party itself will go the way of the Whigs, for they will lose their favorite wedge issue.

However, the bill itself is nothing more than harming poor women, who can't afford to travel outside of the state of Louisiana, which makes this effort despicable.

You mean a million progressive women march. The progressive desire to claim whole groups as "one of us" is annoying as hell.

How is asking a doctor to have admitting privileges at a hospital if he performs abortions harming poor women? There are no hospitals in Louisiana?

Dumb question ^^^; of course there are hospitals in Louisiana. That's not the point, the point is it limits access to poor women and has nothing to do with women's health, it is only a bill to make legal abortions more difficult for them.

No hospital want's antiabortion protests, and that's what they'd get by granting admission privileges to a doc who works in an abortion clinic in the bible belt.

Do you have any evidence that this will actually happen?

 

[martybegan]

Just 10 days ago there was a furor over Trump asserting that Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg should recuse themselves in cases involving his admin because their statements about him expose their blatant bias. The POTUS threatened no one and merely pointed to their words as proof of their duty to recuse.

Yesterday Chuckie Shu - the Senate Jester - stood on the steps of the USSC and threatened 2 justices by name. The media reaction? Newsweek just castigated Chief Justice Roberts for having the temerity to call out Chuckie the Clown.

Chuck Schumer being reprimanded by Chief Justice Roberts "hurts the notion of judicial independence," say legal experts
Supreme Court Justice John Roberts' rebuke of Chuck Schumer over remarks he made at an abortion rights rally risked hurting "the notion of judicial independence" and "public faith" in America's top court, two senior lawyers have said.

What Chuck did was wrong. Just because Trump does that shit on a regular basis does not make it ok for other leader to follow suit. Roberts had a good point in his critique of Schumer but why hasn’t he made the same
condemnations of Trumps attacks on judges?

This partisanship is getting to destructive levels and needs to stop.

Trump's statement was that they should recuse themselves in certain things involving him. he didn't propose any action to force them to recuse, or any action he would take if they didn't recuse.

Schumer implied action on his or his sides part if K&G decided the current case in a way they didn't like.

trump has been going after judges for 3 years... don’t give me that crap

Trump has called out Judges, he hasn't threatened them in the manner Schumer did.

 

[TheParser]

RE: the thread question.

Of course, not.

The Distinguished Senator from the great state of New York is untouchable.

Besides, he is getting ready to become the Majority Leader in just a few more months. Don't mess with him, boy!

The Dems are riding high. No doubt they are busy drawing up a list of Supreme Court justices to impeach.

And they are measuring the orange jump suit that Donald J. Trump will be wearing when he appears before a Dem judge.

Good times are here again for the Dems.

 

[easyt65]

No hospital want's antiabortion protests, and that's what they'd get by granting admission privileges to a doc who works in an abortion clinic in the bible belt.

The moment a Pro-Abortion protestor protests in front of a hospital they have just publicly 'suicided' any claim of concern for the mother's health, as a hospital's only role is to save lives and care for the health of anyone brought there...IMHO.

The hospital is not the topic of discussion, thus to protest THEM is idiotic. Hospitals are not 'prominent players' driving this 'train', seeking to mandate a doctor having 'admission privileges'.